Here we have been arguing about whether to move to Java 7 (or 8) or not and you are saying users need to stick with Log4j 1. Wow. Log4j 1.2 is still at Java 1.2, so it can’t even use java.util.concurrent.
The Logging PMC officially announced EOL for Log4j last August [1]. But in reality it reached EOL years ago. The last release was in 2012 and no one has committed anything to it since then. It has several critical bugs that will never be fixed and its performance, which massively better than java.util.logging is still nothing to write home about [2] Ralph [1] https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apache_logging_services_project_announces <https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apache_logging_services_project_announces> [2] http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html <http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html> > On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Chris Nauroth <cnaur...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > Could you please elaborate on the argument for not logging at all? As a > potential user of commons-crypto, I'll be reluctant to use it if it > doesn't provide adequate diagnostic logging when something goes wrong. > > Regarding the choice of Log4J 2, this is also something that could prevent > uptake. For better or worse, I need to support applications that > currently use Log4J 1, and therefore they will have an expectation that > logging can be tuned through a Log4J 1 log4j.properties or log4j.xml file. > I am not aware of any way for Log4J 2 to provide backwards-compatibility > with Log4J 1 configuration files. > > --Chris Nauroth > > > > > On 6/7/16, 9:07 AM, "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7 June 2016 at 16:42, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Hello Gary, >>> >>> Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um >>> 04:01 Uhr: >>> >>>> Hi All: >>>> >>>> IMO. if [crypto] is to have a dependency on a logging framework, it >>>> should >>>> be Log4j 2, not Commons Logging. Log4j 2 has an API module, which you >>>> can >>>> pair with any number of implementations: Log4j's own Core, JUL, SLF4J, >>>> and >>>> so on. >>>> >>> >>> I agree, but I'd say a low level component like crypto should not do any >>> logging at all. >>> >> >> +1 to not logging >> >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> -- >>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
